Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Tentative Findings – A Critique Dr Dennis Matthews (BSc Hon, PhD) 18 Feb 16 In supporting uranium mining the Commissioner states that post-decommissioning impacts are addressed by a regulator holding a financial security or bond but then admits that the state’s largest uranium mining project, Olympic Dam, is exempt from this requirement.
The commissioner states “Without nuclear power generation, a used fuel reprocessing facility would not be needed in South Australia, nor would it be commercially viable.” He then goes on to say that it is therefore unnecessary to address the environmental and health risks of reprocessing. However, when it comes to discussing nuclear power for SA he says “It would be wise to plan now to ensure that nuclear power would be available should it be required”. The basis for not considering the environmental and health risks of reprocessing is therefore invalid.
In discussing the major nuclear power accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima the 
commissioner disregards deaths that occur years after exposure to ionising radiation. The probability of such deaths may be calculated using the same data that is used in calculating allowable exposures to ionising radiation, which he accepts as justified on the basis of the precautionary principle. Like the nuclear industry in general, the Commissioner considers only deaths from high doses of ionising radiation, for which cause and effect are inescapable. Even in this case he neglects to include the deaths of those who were involved in removing highly radioactive debris from the reactor building. Slavish adherence to pro-nuclear propaganda suggests that the commissioner was far from objective.
Given the economic, environmental and health consequences of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima it is hard to understand the commissioner’s conclusion that “The risk of nuclear accident should not of itself preclude consideration of nuclear power as a future electricity generation option”. 
This callous disregard for the facts is frequently encountered in the arguments of pro-nuclear advocates.
The Commissioner favours consideration of small modular nuclear reactors for SA.
Despite recent decreases in peak demand and the shift of peak demand to later in the day, the Commissioner claims that solar PV has had little effect on peak demand requirements.
The Commissioner claims “there is value in having nuclear as an option that can be readily implemented”.
In relation to nuclear waste importing, storage and disposal the Commissioner states that it would be necessary to develop an associated scientific research group focused on processes for nuclear waste “management, storage and disposal and on possible future use”. The latter presumably refers to reprocessing of used (or spent) fuel into new fuel.
The reprocessing option is clearly spelt out in the section on fuel leasing.
“Fuel leasing based on an operating storage and disposal facility might resolve some of the significant economic barriers to new entrants seeking to provide global conversion, enrichment and fabrication services.”
“The decision to progress any uranium processing aspect of fuel leasing would predominantly be a commercial one.”
“A staged process to the development of any fuel leasing program would seem to have the
best prospects for success. Such a staged approach might involve: initially:
a focus on storage and disposal of waste
second, the sale of uranium, with agreement to dispose of used fuel, to utilities 
that have existing commercial arrangements for conversion, enrichment and fuel 
fabrication services
finally, the development of international partnerships to establish South Australian facilities undertaking 
conversion, enrichment and fabrication, including 
the participation of those using these services.”
Despite significant public and community opposition to uranium mining at Roxby Downs , Honeymoon and Beverley, for which neither public nor community consent was sought or obtained, the Commissioner claims “An 
expansion of uranium mining would involve the continuation of a lawful activity” and that “No additional measures to further regulate community consent or community engagement with respect to new uranium mining projects appear required”.
The Commissioner states “any progress towards an activity is based on a principle of negotiation in good faith on equal terms”. Given the heavily biased terms of reference of the Commission, the choice of pro-nuclear sympathiser as its chair, and the choice of committee stacked in favour of the nuclear industry then the commission failed the Commissioners own rules of community engagement.
The Commissioner states “There are existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection and preservation of heritage” but then goes on to point out, without any criticism or recommendations for remedial measures, that the largest uranium mining project in SA (the Olympic Dam Project) is excluded from these mechanisms.
The Commissioner correctly states, that in determining ionising radiation exposure, a precautionary approach is appropriate. His constant comparison of ionising radiation exposure due to uranium mining with that from background levels of ionising radiation is at odds with the precautionary principle. There is no evidence that exposure to background ionising radiation is safe. The implied suggestion that exposure to other sources of ionising is OK if it is comparable to that from background ionising radiation is misleading.
The Commissioner’s focus on acute radiation syndrome (ARS) due to relatively high levels of exposure to ionising radiation ignores the accepted scientific position that all levels of exposure are harmful, and it discards the precautionary principle which he claims to support. Just because, in cases of exposure that does not cause ARS, there is no known way of linking cause and effect does not mean that there is no effect. The scientific position is that the effect is proportional to the dose at all levels of exposure. The fact that the effects are not immediately obvious or (like asbestos and smoking) are manifest years after the exposure is no basis for ignoring them.
The fact that it is difficult to manufacture nuclear weapons from various sources of uranium and plutonium is no reason to discount the possibility as demonstrated by India’s use of Canadian low grade uranium to make a nuclear weapon.
There is no mention of the use of nuclear waste to make a conventional, non-nuclear, but highly radioactive, “dirty bomb”. Given the Commissioner’s support for importing thousands of tonnes of high level nuclear waste and the global expansion of radical, fanatical terrorist activities, this is a serious oversight.
On the issue of insurance for nuclear activities the Commissioner makes the telling remark that insurance in Australia is not 
sufficient to cover the risks involved in an expanded nuclear industry and that “the state and federal governments would become insurers of last resort”. This, in effect, would be a large tax-payer funded subsidy to the nuclear industry. The Commissioner made no recommendation about changing this situation.
The Commissioner notes that “building up a sufficient level of local engineering expertise requires time, commitment and advanced planning”. Such a level of nuclear engineering expertise would open the door to a wide variety of nuclear projects including, as we saw with the aborted 1969 Jervis Bay project in NSW, nuclear weapons production.
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Why would the world accept Australia’s offer to store nuclear waste? http://theconversation.com/why-would-the-world-accept-australias-offer-to-store-nuclear-waste-54742 Mark Diesendorf While acknowledging that nuclear electricity is not commercially viable in South Australia, the Royal Commission’s tentative findings give strong support to the extraordinary notion that the state should attempt to profit by storing high-level nuclear waste from countries that do have nuclear power.
The scheme envisages a combination of above-ground temporary storage in dry casks, together with storage in a permanent underground repository. In practice, almost all the imported waste would be stored initially in dry casks for several decades before being transferred to the proposed underground storage area, where they would have to be managed for hundreds of thousands of years.
I will examine each of the two storage systems separately.
Temporary above-ground storage
Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of high-level waste from nuclear power stations, both spent fuel rods and reprocessed waste, are in temporary storage around the world. They are “hot” in both temperature and radioactivity. Some are sitting in steel-lined concrete pools near reactors, while others are stored in so-called “dry casks”.
The idea that Australia could obtain a significant amount of this overseas waste for temporary storage in dry casks seems to be based on the dubious assumption that it would be cheaper for overseas countries to pay for shipping their dry casks to Australia for storage than to continue to store them where they are.
But it follows that if Australia could somehow offer an attractive price, then so could other countries with more experience in handling nuclear waste, as pointed out by the Australia Institute. The Royal Commission’s new findings do not reveal the cost of dry cask storage.
Permanent underground storage
The Royal Commission assumes that the “conservative baseline price” that could be received for permanent underground storage is A$1.75 million per tonne of heavy metal, including the operational cost. It is unclear whether this includes storage in dry casks for several decades. The report does not reveal the corresponding cost per tonne, although its bottom-line figures predict an extraordinary 77% undiscounted profit over the lifetime of the project.
These claimed huge profits are based on a long report by Jacobs & MCM, released just a week ago and which few people will have digested in full so far. Hardly any of the assumptions of this new report are mentioned by the Royal Commission’s tentative findings. In reality it is still unclear how much the proposed facility would cost to run, or what kind of return on investment it might create.
It is a heroic fantasy to imagine that Australia would finance and build a permanent underground nuclear waste repository when the United States, an established nuclear nation, has so far failed, and similar facilities in Sweden and Finland are still under construction. The United States spent US$13.5 billion on preparing its proposed site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Its estimated total cost rose to US$96 billion (in 1998 prices) before the project was scrapped by President Obama.
The Royal Commission discusses the alleged economic benefits of underground storage, while failing to acknowledge the economic risks of Australia paying huge capital and operating costs to manage high-level waste for hundreds of thousands of years by means of unproven technologies and short-lived social institutions.
Although storing waste temporarily in dry casks is technically relatively easy, building the permanent underground repository would be very expensive. Therefore, if this scheme were commenced by storing dry casks, it’s possible that the underground repository, which would not be needed for decades, would never be built.
Then South Australia (and Australian taxpayers) could be stuck with managing a huge number of dry casks far beyond their lifetimes. As the casks began to decay and release their contents, the financial burden on future generations, and the environmental and health risks, would be substantial.
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Aboriginal elders on Tuesday accused authorities of paying lip service to traditional owners’ fears that waste could be dumped in the outback.
Australian Nuclear Free Alliance co-chair and Kokatha-Mula woman Sue Coleman-Haseldine says the proposal threatens her people’s spiritual health.
“We can’t survive in this world without our culture and the land is the main part of that. We’ve got sacred sites, we’ve got Dreamtime stories out there,” she told AAP on Tuesday.
“We don’t seem to be able to get this through the government’s heads, the people’s heads. All they see is the dollar signs.” 9 News Feb 16
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, wastes |
Leave a comment
UN urges WA Government not to bring in anti-protest laws, ABC News, By Briana Shepherd, 16 Feb 16 The United Nations has called on the West Australian Government to withdraw controversial new legislation that imposes harsh penalties on protesters.
The proposed laws were first introduced into Parliament in March 2015, and the Government insists it will only target radical protesters using devices like chains or thumb locks to block or stop lawful activities.
But the UN said it would “result in criminalising lawful protests and silencing environmentalists and human rights defenders”.
“If the bill passes, it would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association,” the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.
“The bill would criminalise a wide range of legitimate conduct by creating criminal offences for the acts of physically preventing a lawful activity and possessing an object for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity.
“For example, peaceful civil disobedience and any non-violent direct action could be characterised as ‘physically preventing a lawful activity’.” Under the proposed legislation, an offence would carry serious penalties of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $12,000.
If the offence was committed in circumstances of aggravation, the penalty could be as high as imprisonment for two years and a fine of $24,000. Continue reading →
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
civil liberties, Western Australia |
Leave a comment
Bill Shorten flags shift on nuclear waste storage, THE AUSTRALIAN, Michael Owen, Jared Owens, 16 Feb 16 “……..In a big shift from his position a year ago, when he refused to back South Australia’s nuclear royal commission, the Opposition Leader yesterday signalled the possibility of bipartisan support for the inquiry’s proposal that South Australia store some of the world’s high-level nuclear waste.
The radical plan could not proceed without bipartisan support to change commonwealth laws, with federal Labor viewed as the major roadblock.
Visiting a school in Adelaide yesterday, Mr Shorten said federal Labor supported safe storage of low-level domestic nuclear waste and could be persuaded under the right conditions to consider “getting into the international business of storing other people’s nuclear waste”…….
His remarks dismayed some in the ALP, with the party platform “strongly opposed” to storing of imported nuclear waste.
Melissa Parke, the federal MP for Fremantle, said Labor members were “very passionate” about the platform. “Therefore federal Labor’s response to any proposal to store international high-level nuclear waste must be a resounding ‘no’,” she said.
A year ago, Mr Shorten refused to back South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s establishment of a royal commission to examine whether the state should increase nuclear fuel cycle activities.
In 2013, he quashed a call by Labor MPs for the party to reopen debate about support for a nuclear industry. Another move last year to change the policy was put on hold until the commission delivered its final report to the Weatherill government. This is due on May 6. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-flags-shift-on-nuclear-waste-storage/news-story/ef1280d83926b7c7d10692d5910e15a6
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
2 Comments
Albanese ‘cautious’ on SA nuclear proposal 9 News 17 Feb 16 Senior Labor figure Anthony Albanese says he is “very cautious” about a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia’s outback.
This comes after opposition leader Bill Shorten indicated he was open to a royal commission recommendation that SA earn billions of dollars and create thousands of jobs by storing and disposing nuclear waste.
But Labor’s infrastructure spokesman Mr Albanese appears more wary of the proposal, telling 5AA radio “I would be very cautious about it”.
“You should examine it and all the implications and there should be a community debate,” he said.
Mr Albanese also said he was “not a fan” of the nuclear fuel cycle and said renewable energies were more economically viable……… http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/17/10/25/albanese-cautious-on-sa-nuclear-proposal#JtxocOdo0XoCmzd1.99
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics |
1 Comment
The repeal of the carbon price and the stalling of renewable energy development has put Australia on a path to increase emissions to record levels and will likely not reach a peak before 2030.
The nuclear industry is essentially counting on failure on these tasks, and then having some sort of Marshall plan to allow for the extra expense of nuclear generation.
Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 15 February 2016 The South Australian Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle has conceded that nuclear power is not a viable alternative for Australia, but has urged authorities to consider it anyway – in what could have serious implications for the roll out of renewable energy across the country.
The commission delivered the results of its “tentative” findings on Monday, indicating that it supports the establishment of a nuclear waste facility in the state, the storing of spent nuclear fuel and the expansion of uranium mining.
On the subject of nuclear generation, the commission admitted that it wasn’t viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future (2030) – even with a significant carbon price and a sharp reduction in the cost of capital.
It conceded that Australia should only adopt “proven” new nuclear technologies such as “small modular reactors” and next generation “fast reactors” , but that these were some way off, and likely to be very costly.
But commission chairman Kevin Scarce wants the nuclear generation dream to continue. He admitted that while there were real risks in nuclear generation – and there are “no guarantees on its safety” – he doesn’t “think the positive side of nuclear power is being presented.” Continue reading →
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics |
1 Comment
Despite what nuclear boosters tell us about wind and solar, numerous reports, including by the Australian Energy Market Operator, the French government, and various think tanks, say 100% renewable energy based largely around wind and solar is perfectly feasible, and will likely even reduce costs.
Nuclear commission findings spell more trouble for wind and solar in Australia REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 15 February 2016 “………The Royal Commission has chosen to run with some of those myths, which is disappointing, but not surprising given that one of the biggest proponents is a web-site operated by one of the commissioners, Professor Barry Brook. A paper co-authored by Brook is repeatedly cited in the commission’s report and by pro-nuclear submissions to the commission.
Among these myths, promoted by Scarce on Monday, is the need for more peaking gas and imports in South Australia because of the growth in wind and solar. Actually, as has been pointed out repeatedly,South Australia now uses less peaking gas and less imports from Victoria than before it produced a lot of wind and solar.
The document also says that solar PV has had a negligible impact on peak demand in South Australia. Actually, it has had a significant impact on peak demand, pushing the peak from late afternoon and into the evening and made it smaller, to the benefit of the network in heat waves.
The royal commission document also says battery storage applications are not yet commercial. Actually, they are, and Ergon Energy has already rolled out dozens of 100kWh, utility-scale battery storage arrays, saying it reduces grid upgrade costs by one-third – with no subsidy. Continue reading →
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Solar company sees potential for NSW Riverina to become renewable energy hub ABC Riverina, 16 Feb 16, A solar energy company believes the western New South Wales city of Griffith has the potential to market itself as a renewable energy hub. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/solar-company-envisages-nsw-riverina-energy-hub/7170684
Riverina Solar wants to build a $62 million, 30 megawatt solar farm at Yoogali near Griffith. The project has been shortlisted for funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Director Steve McCall is hopeful a second solar farm project, also shortlisted for funding, will receive backing. He said it could be the start of a new industry for the region.
“We’ve been talking with Griffith council as well. We believe there’s a great opportunity for Griffith to become a renewable energy hub, or a region where you’ve got large scale solar here,” he said.
“That would hopefully potentially attract universities coming in and doing studies. “We’re also looking at other options, potentially in the future of how solar or how other renewable energies could be attracted to the area.”
Information sessions about the Riverina Solar proposal will be held at the Griffith Regional Theatre on Tuesday and Thursday.
Mr McCall said he would like to have the project’s environmental impact statement completed by the end of the month, and is hopeful the solar farm may be approved by mid-year.
“Griffith has an excellent substation based at Yoogali and it has just recently been upgraded over the last few years, so it has sufficient capacity to be able to connect into that site without a great deal of further upgrade,” he said. Mr McCall said the project would not be affected by the grants process. “We’ve got a number of different, interested offtakers and so once we establish that and finalise that aspect of it, that completes the commercial aspect of the project,” he said.
“While the funding would be terrific, and it’s only a small portion of the project, it doesn’t look like it would jeopardise our project going forward in any sense.”
February 17, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
New South Wales, solar |
Leave a comment
Karina Lester’s father was affected by the Maralinga atomic tests in the 1950s in outback SA and vowed she would fight to keep any dump out of Aboriginal communities.
“I want to urge all my Anangu representatives and also the wider Aboriginal community to be very actively involved in this and to speak up to tell their stories, because we all have a story to talk about how this nuclear [testing] has impacted on us,” she said.
“We’ve got cultural responsibilities and we’ve also got responsibilities to our next generation.
“It is very immoral and it’s catastrophic to be talking about waste. The waste is not going to end up in Adelaide — it will be remote South Australia.” – ABC News 15 Feb 16
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
aboriginal issues, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
Leave a comment
The Age today reported on the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission. I guess we should be thankful that this news actually got into more than just the South Australian press and the corporate mouthpiece THE AUSTRALIAN.
Of course, this is in the Business section, not the major part of the paper. . After all, it’s not as if the question of importing radioactive trash is of concern to Australian sin general. Or is it?
Anyway – some of the contradictions, omissions and problems in the Royal Commission findings, as reported.
QUESTIONS
Optimism about money?. I really doubt that anyone has a clue about the long term costs of the 
nuclear waste import plan.
“…….. waste disposal facility could deliver $5 billion in revenue annually for the first 30 years, and would be “highly profitable” because of strong demand from other countries……..
Mr Scarce said he had been conservative in his assumptions.
“I want to under-promise and over-deliver,” he said…..”
“Facility could be open in a decade“….Really?
“He [Scarce] said during the life of a nuclear storage facility, a net present value of profits of more than $51 billion had been calculated”. Why hasn’t some other country with nuclear expertise and experience grasped this opportunity?
The tax-payer will be up for huge costs?
“He [Scarce] recommended that such a facility be government owned.….. the facility would require a dedicated port facility, airport and rail freight line”. Who pays for all that?
OMISSIONS
“There are significant quantities of used fuel from nuclear reactors in temporary storage in the Asia-Pacific region and these quantities will grow ” -not a mention of the transport problems and dangers .
CONTRADICTIONS
“There’s always an opportunity if we dawdle that someone would take the competitive advantage away from us,” he [Scarce] said…
…..Mr Weatherill said.“The critical thing here is we don’t rush the process. There’s no doubt there’s some exciting possibilities for South Australia contained in the report”…… [this statement appears in the online version, but not in the print version]
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, media, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Chris Murray 16 Feb 16 The issue of low level radiation is crucial to the nuclear debate. If the threshold/hormesis outliers are successful in their campaign, radiation protection limits will be raised and nuclear costs will fall dramatically.
It is unfortunate therefore that The Royal Commission is so economical with the truth on low level radiation. It specifically quotes WHO and UNSCEAR to paint a particular picture. The omission of very relevant material from the same sources does not inspire confidence in its findings. Although it states that “a precautionary approach is appropriate”, by minimizing the possible casualties from Chernobyl and Fukushima, it effectively dumps any such precautionary approach.
While UNSCEAR, citing uncertainties, refuses to give any estimates for the absolute number of casualties from Chernobyl, it does state that “”Although the numbers of cancers projected to be induced by radiation exposure after the accident are very small relative to the baseline cancer risk, THEY COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS”
(My emphasis – even a “very small” increase of say, 0.5%, in baseline risk would cause 5,000 extra cancers in a 5 million population, assuming normal cancer mortality of 20% of all deaths.)
Also unmentioned is that the WHO/Chernobyl Forum (of which UNSCEAR was a member) stated that
“The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs)”
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
(this is for the most exposed areas alone)
Also ignored is that the WHO/CF, while acknowledging considerable uncertainties (which can lead to underestimation of effects as easily as overestimation), estimated a possible further 5,000 fatal cancers from the most contaminated areas in wider Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, giving a total of 9,000.
“Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, “
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
Nor is there any mention that even UNSCEAR accepts a proven risk down to 10 mSv:
“Risk estimates vary with age, with younger people generally being more sensitive; studies of in utero radiation exposures show that the foetus is particularly sensitive, with elevated risk being detected at doses of 10 mSv and above.”
Also ignored is that UNSCEAR, in its recent Fukushima report, no longer uses a DDREF (Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor). No DDREF means that the 9,000 could legitimately be doubled to 18,000. And again, this is from the most contaminated areas. The fallout and its effects did not stop there, unless one is claiming a definite threshold, an ideological position rejected again and again by the scientific establishment (See the recent US EPA statement athttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0436 ).
Again, unmentioned in the report, the WHO/CF admits that “Chernobyl may also cause cancers in Europe outside Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.“
The Commission seems to have adopted the nuclear industry spin that low level radiation is of no concern if it’s comparable to background radiation. This is like saying it’s ok to deliberately electrocute people so long as the numbers are comparable to those killed by “natural electricity” ie lightning. The Commission seems to have no awareness that the BEIR VII committee, the ICRP, the 21st H L Gray conference etc. examined the “evidence” for the claim that background radiation was harmless and found it wanting, the studies either being ecological or lacking statistical power.
Likewise the Commission seem unaware that a recent study – A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006 – has shown that background radiation may be responsible for 12% of childhood leukaemias. And if it’s responsible for leukaemia, it is almost certainly responsible for other cancers.
One of the authors of this study is Richard Wakeford, the former BNFL principal research sciencist, who can hardly be accused of being an unscientific tree-hugger, an anti-nuke idealogue, a Greenpeace or coal industry shill, etc. etc.
Shockingly, none of this, much from the Commission’s own sources, is mentioned. Instead it hides behind “ongoing scientific debate”, and cherrypicks the most reassuring quotes.
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, health, NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, South Australia |
1 Comment
Only on the question of the importation, storage and disposal of nuclear waste is the inquiry up-front. This is seen as a definite goer. A big bold tick for the world’s unloved and unwanted nuclear waste. Oh, and by the way, this includes fuel originating from SA’s uranium via “fuel leasing”. The plan is to store the waste for over a decade before it is disposed.
This happens to be just the sort of time delay that would allow the setting up of a plant to produce fresh 
uranium fuel from the spent fuel. Another discretely hidden tick, this time for processing.
Dr Dennis Matthews (BSc Hon, PhD), 15 Feb 16 After setting up an inquiry with biased terms of reference, chaired by a person with known sympathies for the nuclear industry, and appointing a committee calculated to support a pro-nuclear agenda, Premier Jay Weatherill now says, with his best poker-face, that this will be a test for democracy.
Well may Jay say that this is a test for democracy, because in setting the test he has bastardised democracy and is now endeavouring to head off any objections. One can almost hear the storm troopers rattling their swords as they look forward to putting down anyone with the temerity to challenge the beloved leader.
The so-called “tentative findings” of Weatherill’s mock democratic consultation are as devious as the man himself.
Weatherill would like us to believe that all he is doing is setting up a nuclear waste industry that will bring untold economic benefits to SA, benefits which the rest of the world seems significantly less eager to embrace, especially those with mature nuclear industries generating this noxious product.
In fact, this travesty of an inquiry is preparing the ground for a full-on nuclear SA with uranium mining, nuclear waste importation, nuclear fuel manufacturing and nuclear power. Continue reading →
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
SA nuclear inquiry backs waste dump South Australia should take the world’s nuclear waste in
exchange for billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs, the state’s nuclear royal commission has found.
But it would not be viable for SA to host a nuclear power plant or to expand into fuel processing in the foreseeable future.
Former governor Kevin Scarce on Monday handed down the royal commission’s initial findings after months of analysis and public consultation.
His inquiry has strongly backed SA taking nuclear waste, a position that is sure to attract fierce opposition from green groups. Under the model proposed by the commission, an above-ground storage site would initially host nuclear waste in “casks” made of metal or concrete.
The waste would then be stored deep underground in purpose-built canisters.
A storage and disposal facility with a capacity of 138,000 tonnes – or about 13 per cent of the world’s projected used fuel inventory – would generate more than $257 billion in revenue over its 120-year lifespan.
Total costs for the facility would reach $145 billion, including the construction of a dedicated port facility, airport and freight rail line, independent modelling shows.
The report assumes it would take 25 years to build the facility, with employment peaking at up to 5000 jobs before tailing off to 600 during operations.
A waste and storage facility could generate more than $5 billion in annual revenue before the yearly waste intake peaks after 30 years and concludes after 70 years.
The commission has also proposed the creation of a state wealth fund in which all profits and a portion of gross revenue would be invested.
Mr Scarce said waste storage presented significant opportunities for the SA economy.
……Any move to embrace nuclear storage would require changes to state and federal legislation.
The commission found that it would not be commercially viable for SA to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant or develop uranium processing facilities.
But the state should still prepare for the possibility of sourcing nuclear power……..http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/15/03/33/sa-nuclear-inquiry-to-present-findings
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016 |
1 Comment
Today’s Royal Commission ‘Tentative Findings’ report clearly states that nuclear power will not be economically viable. It also says that uranium conversion, uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing are not economically viable. The state’s peak environmental body Conservation Council SA welcomes these findings.
However the report says that South Australia should consider importing international nuclear waste.
“We have had the Royal Commission, now any nuclear waste dump needs South Australia’s permission”, says Conservation SA Chief Executive Craig Wilkins.
“This is a decision for all South Australians. The issue of genuine acceptance and consent is absolutely critical.
“If we pursue a nuclear waste dump path, we are saying “the best we can do is accept the worst the world has got”. I honestly think we can do better than that.”
An opinion poll commissioned by The Advertiser last year found that less than one in six (15.7%) South Australians support a nuclear waste dump in SA.*
“Now comes the hard part. We’ve had a technocratic, distant process so far – now it turns to real people, real places and real values,” says Mr Wilkins.
“The Royal Commission presents an optimistic view of potential profits from offering Australia as the world’s nuclear waste dump. The Commission acknowledges that nuclear waste needs to be isolated from the environment for “many hundreds of thousands of years” yet there is no attempt to cost the management of waste over those timeframes.
“If there’s one thing we know, the nuclear industry is expert at overstating the benefits and radically understating the costs and risks.
“Ultimately, we think it’s essential that all current and future South Australians should have the freedom to choose. Saying yes to nuclear makes that choice forever, there is no going back.”
February 15, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION 2016, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Antinuclear 